Cases 31 - 40 of 276
Pate v. Precythe
as 2:2022cv00050
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Cortez Pate
Defendant:
Anne L. Precythe
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Pate v. Chapman
as 2:2022cv00051
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Cortez Pate
Defendant:
Michelle Chapman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Grimes et al
as 4:2022cv00782
Plaintiff:
Nicolas Cortez Williams
Defendant:
Matthew Grimes doing business as St. Louis County Police Officer Grimes #04322 (Jennings) and Steve Pokorny doing business as CEO of STS Car Care
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bradford v. USA
as 3:2022cv00148
Petitioner:
Livon Cortez Bradford
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Huck et al v. Dillon Transportation LLC et al
as 4:2022cv00546
Plaintiff:
Christopher Huck and Taneshia Huck
Defendant:
Dillon Transportation LLC and Darrin Cortez Leavell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Cortez v. General Mills, Inc., et al
as 0:2022cv01552
Plaintiff:
Enrique Cortez
Defendant:
General Mills, Inc. and General Mills, Inc. Long-Term Disability Income Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Hudson v. Marbley et al
as 4:2022cv00364
Plaintiff:
Xavier Cortez Hudson
Defendant:
Tina Marbley, CoreCivic West Tennessee Detention and Marrel Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richard Cortez v. Jeremy Larson
as 22-1640
Petitioner / Appellant:
Richard Cortez
Respondent / Appellee:
Jeremy Larson, Warden
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00023
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross Claimant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv00419
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
